It's almost like CAIR doesn't care anymore. They are taking an openly hostile stance and dismissing the highly substantive concerns about prison dawah that these hearings will (or should) address out of hand. All criticism of Islam, and establishing even the most tentative connection between Islam and violence is now "hate speech" and "incitement." They aren't even pretending toward dialogue here anymore. They want a monologue in an echo chamber, and anything else is Islamophobic.
For all of the flaws of the first round of King's hearings, he did call CAIR out for its behavior in this regard, and they continue to prove his point. "Controversy: Rep. King plans second Muslim-American radicalization hearing," by Jim Khouri for the Examiner, June 10 (thanks to all who sent this in):
U.S. Congressman Peter King (R-NY) yesterday informed all parties concerned that there would be a second House Homeland Security Committee hearing on the subject of radicalization within the American-Muslim community.
This latest hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, June 15, and its main topic will be the Muslim population incarcerated in prisons throughout the country.
“We have seen cases in which inmates have been radicalized at the hands of already locked-up terrorists or by extremist imam chaplains,” said Chairman King in a statement.
“We will focus on a number of the serious cases in which radicalized current and former inmates have planned and launched attacks or attempted to join overseas Islamic terrorist organizations.”
King's first hearing in March caused many within the Muslim community to condemn the subject of radicalization, and almost half of the Democrats in the House urged him to cancel it.
"While there have been extremist groups and random acts of political violence throughout our history, the al Qaeda attacks of 9/11 and the ongoing threat to our nation from Islamic jihad were uniquely diabolical and threatening to America’s security, both overseas and in our homeland," said King last March.
"It was this dramatically increased threat which Attorney General Holder said “keeps him awake at night” and drove him “to make people aware of the fact that the threat is real, the threat is different, and the threat is constant."
Attorney General Holder also noted before March's hearings that the teachings of Islamic jihadist Anwar Al Awlaki inspired many of the most recent terrorist attacks. This threat is real, and we can hardly afford to ignore the motivating ideology behind nearly every recent homegrown attack, such as the Zazi plot, the Times Square Attack, Fort Hood, the Portland Christmas bombing attempt, and numerous others. "
The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) prodded Rep. Thompson into attempting to discredit King's probe and one the Islamic group's top officials released a press statement. "Representative King seems to believe that he need not offer any evidence or expert testimony to back up his baseless allegations," said CAIR Legislative Director Corey Saylor. [...]
CAIR officials routinely attacks anyone who questions the motives or actions of Muslims in the United States, according to several law enforcement sources.
It's a two-step process: deflect attention by appropriating victim status from actual or intended victims of jihadist terrorism, and attempt to silence the discussion by acting as though any portrayal of Islam or Muslims in a negative light amounts to inciting hate crimes or "backlash."
According to a report from the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security: "The Council on American-Islamic Relations and its employees have combined, conspired, and agreed with third parties, including, but not limited to, the Islamic Association for Palestine, the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, the Global Relief Foundation, and foreign nationals hostile to the interests of the United States, to provide material support to known terrorist organizations, to advance the Hamas agenda, and to propagate radical Islam."....
"It's almost like CAIR doesn't care anymore"
Why should they? They're highly accustomed now to the American Infidels bowing down to them.
Campaign for an American Islamic Republic
Nice!
If they have all that revealing and damning evidence against CAIR, why does CAIR still exist...Someone in gov is not doing their job...I wonder who that is?
Never
In
Countless
Eons
!
Lan astaslem, MS!
Since Muslims are allowed to read the Koran in prison,
are Aryan Brotherhood members allowed to read Mein Kampf in prison?
Lets hope this round is more productive than the first.
I suppose there is ample evidence for detrimental influence of Islam in prisons for the "allegations" of Peter King. Especially here on Jihad Watch. And that that evidence shifts the burden of proof to CAIR and friends.
And the question seems to me whether
the defense of a religion/ ideology and the feelings of its adherents about "allegations" against it or
the defense of a country, it's laws and its citizens and future generations should be considered a higher priority
when the 2 are in contradiction and conflict with each other.
The problem is with 'prisoners rights'...It usedto be a prisoners right to behave themselves and do as they are told...Someone forgot to lock the front door and some Social workers, lawyers and community organizers drifted in...Now 'prisoners have all kinds of 'right's, including those of religion...The guards are powerless to stop Islamic recruitment...They are not even allowed to listen in to the sermons and talks given by real or semi-fake Imams...
This is a violation of prisoners rights...Had the social engineers stayed away, this problem could be stopped, or would not have started...
This investigatory round will, hopefully, be less theatrical than the last King hearing; i.e. sans a certain Minnessotan representative's crocodile tears.
@duh_swami, obviously Eric "My People" Holder isn't doing his job properly.
Prison dawah. Already in prison, some people want to add a life sentence of enslavement to Islam.
Weird!
This demonstrates the need for us to deal with multiculturalism. We can start by circumscribing it with the addition of another "ism" and that "ism" is "visionism". We in the Western world have a vision based upon values that have become important to us. See the inner circle on the back cover:
http://imageshack.us/f/30/backcover11.jpg/
Where immigrants are well integrated, that is, blending into the host country while still retaining certain cultural accents, we have what I call, "multiculturalism with univisionism". For the US, this univisionism can be simply called the American Way. But, especially in the case of Islam and muslims, we have "multiculturalism with multivisionism". The result? We read about it here on JW all the time. This is the approach I will be using to smash multiculturalism as it currently is and I believe I can conceptually do it in an almost politically correct manner. I axe you, do I sound like a bigot and racist?
Perhps somebody should focus on why they are specificlally targeting known criminals, or specifically why they are so interested in violent criminals.
Perhaps there should be a focus on the enclaves that have been in the news, that Mr. Gaffney talked about in the last hearings, and that the committee member responding to him had never heard of.
Re: enclaves. It should be stated for the congressional record weather they really exist or not.
Should the story be real this is damning news for the Dept of Homeland security and they no doubt have been alerted to them AND there have been broadcasted news reports about them.
Pokermutt, you talk of Multiculturalism with Univisionism and about the American Way. I like the way you creatively experiment with new names very much.
I know that too much good news in newspapers/ media is boring and in the long run will not sell. So the media bring lots of problems and scandals to our attention. Fine.
Then many people demand to do something about the problems and scandals. And right quick and thorough too. Also fine, we can't do without goals AGAINST something.
But perhaps we can combine against-goals with for-goals. Because so many wise books recommend that it is better to be FOR something than it is to be only AGAINST something. Many wise books even say being ONLY against something focuses too much attention on it and actually strengthens it.
Thus I fear that goals of us that are ONLY AGAINST Islam and what Muslims do and threathen to do, have the problem of people focusing too much on Islam and also depressing us too much at times.
So perhaps after the problems and the scandals, it is OK to know what we are AGAINST but we can augment that to know what it is then that we are FOR, as replacement of that which we are against. After all, what if we succeed, we can't live in a vacuum, can we?
And of course I am FOR all democratic rules and values in almost all countries, not just election, but also autonomy of individual and freedom of speech. And for the UN-DHuRi (Human Rights), Golden Rule.
And yes, a few Islamic countries, where Muslims can go to if they can only be really loyal to Islamic law and when they are thus hostile + dangerous to and blocking what I mentioned I was for above.
And I love to see Muslims AGAINST what we are FOR, more than than to see that we are AGAINST something they are FOR. Because some wise books say that sometimes many people think about the same thing/ idea/ scandal/ ideology, only some are against and other are for it. But the PICTURE is the same. And the words NO, NOT, NEVER are irrelevant to what a person sees in his/ her mind.
Hello demsci:
Nice reply and thanks as well. Keep those thoughts in your head to remind us every once and a while when I/we stray. I am also for what you said here,
"And of course I am FOR all democratic rules and values in almost all countries, not just elections, but also autonomy of individual and freedom of speech. And for the UN-DHuRi (Human Rights), Golden Rule."
I am for the inner circle of the back cover and I bet you can find some common ground here:
http://imageshack.us/f/30/backcover11.jpg/
The top of the back cover says what we are for and what we are against in the aggregate as well.
Just a little more Demsci:
When I say univisionism some people might reply like this:
"I am socialist-minded" and another might say, "I am capitalist-minded." I would reply, "Fine, no problem, because we are talking essentially the same thing and your preferences are merely variations on the same theme--the implementation and maintenance of a just society where the means can change with time, circumstance, perception, and the ballot box."
Islam of course, has a fixed, inflexible vision of the darkest kind.
What I'd rather see is an investigation of the Islamic indoctrination of children in public schools. But apparently the federal education establishment is too powerful or fearful to take on. So, King will focus on prisoners.
Hello Skeen66, you said:
"What I'd rather see is an investigation of the Islamic indoctrination of children in public schools."
I couldn't agree with you more, and emphatically so. Freedom of thought for the most important things is suppressed/crippled right off the hop. Relativism and moral equivalence is a curse.
Demsci wrote:
Thus I fear that goals of us that are ONLY AGAINST Islam and what Muslims do and threathen to do, have the problem of people focusing too much on Islam and also depressing us too much at times.
.............................
Demsci, I agree with you and Pokermutt. We must know not just what we stand against—as important as that is.
We also have to know *what we stand for*, and what values and ideals we need to defend.
I think it's time to re-post one of Fitzgerald's best: 'What's At Stake'.
(The associated comments thread is also well worth reading, as people expand on the idea and offer their own list of things they love about their respective countries and societies, that would be annihilated by a Muslim takeover).
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/05/fitzgerald-whats-at-stake.html
And to reinforce Fitzgerald's point, here are two of my favourite weblinks, allowing one to browse online galleries of, respectively, a. Rembrandt and b. Renoir: a whole slew of dreadfully unislamic paintings of living beings, many of them women in *very* unislamic dress.
Demsci: study those paintings and tell yourself: this is one of *your country's* great gifts to the world, to humanity. *This* would be destroyed, be sure of it, if the Muslims take the Netherlands. This man, Rembrandt, was your fellow citizen. Be proud of him. Because of *him*, be proud of being Dutch. (There are of course many others besides Rembrandt).
http://staff.science.uva.nl/~fjseins/RembrandtCatalogue/index.html
Here, as a sample, is Rembrandt's representation of John 8: the account of Christ and the woman taken in adultery.
http://www.uni-leipzig.de/ru/bilder/umwelt.jes/b2-73.jpg
Now, Renoir. Cheerful, happy portraits of women and children - and, you will notice if you page through the pictures, pet dogs too (most unislamic).
http://www.renoirgallery.com/gallery.asp
Renoir's 'A Dance in the City'
http://www.renoirgallery.com/gallery.asp?id=32
Dumbledore's Army wrote:
I think it's time to re-post one of Fitzgerald's best: 'What's At Stake'.
............................
Thanks for reposting that excellent piece by Hugh, DDA.
I went to a performance with my husband by New Orlean's Rebirth Brass Band in San Francisco for "A Night in Treme" on Friday.
There was this loud, vibrant, *joyous* music, by turns reverent and mildly risqué, and with a fine sense of humor (if music can be said to have a sense of humor, and I think it sometimes can).
I could not help but think that *all this would be lost* under Islam. All those bright instruments crushed and melted down, all the musicians fled or worse.
Davies Symphony Hall burned down, or—perhaps more terrible—converted into a mosque...
We have a *great deal* to fight for.